MPC vs PTEN Stock Comparison
Compare MPC and PTEN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MPC and PTEN?
MPC leads the current stock comparison as Marathon Petroleum Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Marathon Petroleum Corporation vs Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc.
MPC leads
MPC leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors PTEN on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MPC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Marathon Petroleum Corporation
Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MPC over PTEN, 60 versus 50 as of Sep 6, 2026. MPC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. MPC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PTEN. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MPC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MPC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Marathon Petroleum Corporation and Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare MPC and PTEN against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum25%83 vs 64MPC +19
- Quality30%48 vs 30MPC +18
- Risk Resilience15%48 vs 45Even
- Value30%59 vs 61Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MPC. MPC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
MPC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MPC and PTEN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MPC (Marathon Petroleum Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
PTEN (Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 58.8% against 34.7%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
MPCMPC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
MPCMPC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MPCMPC on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
MPCMPC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
PTENPTEN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MPC, analyst targets favor PTEN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MPC | PTEN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -19.2% | +0.6% | PTEN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +74.5% | +48% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MPC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MPC | 60 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | MPCon balance | revenue growth 50.4% vs 9.9%; EPS growth 9.2% vs 14%; TTM ROE 48.7% vs -2.8%; gross margin 11.6% vs 14.2%; operating margin 8% vs -1.1% — MPC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 59 vs 61 |
| Technicals | MPC | Price vs 50-day 20.8% vs 17.1%; vs 200-day 60.9% vs 31.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 48 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | PTEN | Target upside -19.2% vs 0.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MPC and PTEN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on MPC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5MPC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MPC +10
- 60 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- MPC +5
- 59 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- MPC +8
- 62 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- MPC +15
- 57 vs 42
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (33.23%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.95%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
MPC leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.31%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.04%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1PTEN closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to MPC's edge.
- 2PTEN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MPC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
MPC leads on balance| Metric | MPC | PTEN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 50.4% | 9.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 9.2% | 14% |
| Gross margin | 11.6% | 14.2% |
| Operating margin | 8% | -1.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 48.7% | -2.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.8 | 0.41 |
Performance
MPC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MPC | PTEN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.4% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 29.6% | 25.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 48.4% | 7.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 75.8% | 38.5% |
| Year to date | 135% | 103.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 117.3% | 125% |
Technicals
MPC has the stronger structure| Metric | MPC | PTEN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.8 | 52.8 |
| ADX (14) | 43.4 | 26.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 20.8% | 17.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 60.9% | 31.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.7% | 58.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | MPC | PTEN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.14 | -0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.33 | 1.64 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.55 | 2.58 |
| Max drawdown | -18.7% | -33.4% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.3% | 52.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -5.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MPC or PTEN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MPC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 60 against PTEN's 50. The edge comes from momentum and quality. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is MPC or PTEN the better buy right now?
MPC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MPC over PTEN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. MPC leads Momentum by 19 points; MPC leads Quality by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MPC or PTEN?
Analyst price targets imply -19.2% upside for MPC and +0.6% for PTEN, so the Street currently favors PTEN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MPC. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, MPC or PTEN?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, MPC or PTEN?
MPC on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, MPC or PTEN?
MPC on the Momentum factor, by 19 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, MPC or PTEN?
MPC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MPC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is MPC more profitable than PTEN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 11.6% vs 14.2%; operating margin 8% vs -1.1%; ttm roe 48.7% vs -2.8%. MPC leads on two measures and PTEN on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is MPC's lead over PTEN getting stronger or weaker?
MPC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the MPC vs PTEN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PTEN closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to MPC's edge; PTEN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MPC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about MPC and PTEN?
MPC: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PTEN: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on MPC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PTEN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MPC and PTEN with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.